From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu
To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu
Subject: Skunk Works Digest V2 #54
Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu
Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu
Precedence: bulk
Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 16 January 1993 Volume 02 : Number 054
In this issue:
Re: Aerospace Daily Aurora article part 2
Re: laser
Aerospace Sciences Meeting
Re: Sled Driver (fwd)
Re: Skunk Works is hiring??? Say, do they need physical chemists?
Jobs?!
Re: Aerospace Sciences Meeting
Jobs?!
Re: Aerospace Daily Aurora article part 2
Re: Aerospace Daily Aurora article part 2
B-2 Stealth Fix
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works
or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 01:30:20 PST
Subject: Re: Aerospace Daily Aurora article part 2
The following is from Aerospace Daily, Wednesday January 13, 1993
Aviation Week Group, McGraw-Hill Inc. (this is not AW&ST, however it is
owned by the same firm - McGraw-Hill)
Aerospace Daily Special report
Air Force abondoned SR-71 follow-on in mid-1980s
(Continued)
Rice fired off a terse letter to The Washington Post in December complaining
about two "Aurora" stories that accused the AF of spreading "disinformation".
He insisted that the service has no such program "either known as 'Aurora'
or by any other name. And if such a program existed elsewhere, I'd know about
it - and I don't." He added that he has "never hedged a denial" about it,
and the AF "has never created ... cover stories to protect any program
or vehicle like 'Aurora.' I can't be more unambiguous than that." Rice echoed
the remarks in a rare interview with CNN the next day.
The AF has investigated various reports of phenomenon that suggested an
"Aurora"-type aircraft, because, as one service official said, "it wasn't
one of ours and we wanted to know if it was someone else's."
The service had MIT's Lincoln Laboratories do an independent analysis of data
recorded in Southern California by a U.S. Geological Survey seismologist.
The data allegedly showed that some aircraft was routinely causing
triple-sonic booms. But Lincoln Labs found that "the data matched documented
flight tests of Navy aircraft along the California coast," according to
an AF document.
"Aurora" was reported to have made a covert night landing at Lockheed's
Helendale, Calif., facility on July 12, 1992, but the AF said this would be
an "amazing" feat, since the field is "short, narrow ... only 4,000 feet
long and 400 feet wide ... and could not possibly accomodate a billion
dollar, one-of-a-kind hypersonic aircraft nearly the length of a Boeing 747."
A "long,slender, aerodynamic shape with rounded chines" seen being loaded
into a C-5 at the Skunk Works - and reported as "Aurora" - was actually
an F-117 radar cross section pole model, the AF asserted.
After checking out a reported near-miss between a commercial airliner and
an unusual supersonic aircraft last year, the AF couldn't find a military
plane that would have been in the area, and "based on our investigation,
we can unequivocally state that no military aircraft was involved in this
incident."
The AF also said that some "sightings" of the mystery plane "will probably
remain unchallenged simply because there is not enough information available
to even hazard a guess." In this category the service places reports of a
wedge-shaped plane over the North Sea in October 1989 and "puffs" of
smoke resembling "doughnuts on a rope.""
While the hypersonic "Aurora" is not a reality, sources and independent
evidence suggest that the AF may indeed operate secret aircraft unfamiliar
to the general public. The Skunk Works, for example, routinely accounts for
more work in Lockheed's annual report than can be accounted for by overt,
or "white" programs. But these would not, as Rice said, "come close to"
the performance attributed to "Aurora".
The Pentagon revealed the existence of one of these aircraft in a synopsis
of a classified Inspector General audit released last year. The IG is
required to summarize audits that it isn't permitted to publish.
The audit, labeled simply "Report No. 92-110 - Top Secret," was ordered
"to determine if the Program was responsive to contingency requirements
and to evaluate the overall management of the peacetime program."
The synopsis described "the Program" as needing "improvements ... in
procedures for transitioning from peacetime (to wartime) operations and for
approving peacetime reconnaissance flights." In addition, it said that
"the Air Force budget for one aircraft type was overstated by $14.4
million for the six-year period ending in FY 1997."
Pressed repeatedly to explain this secret aircraft, since it would, at
first glance, suggest an "Aurora," a Pentagon official would only advise
the questioner to "think lower-tech."
------------------------------
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 05:03:48 MST
Subject: Re: laser
joeh@words.mti.sgi.com (Joseph Heinrich) writes:
>There was a show on the Arts&Entertainment channel last night, part
>of the series titled "This Century," or "Our Century," or
>something similar.
Actually, the show we were seeing was from a series called "Frontline Pilots",
but A&E chose to air it in their "Our Century" package... which in practice
seems to be rather similar in arrangement to PBS' "Masterpiece Theatre".
>Anyway, pilots were describing the method they used to laser-designate
>targets in Desert Storm. They called it "buddy lasing," where one pilot
>lases the target while the second drops its ordnance.
Yea, that is not an uncommon scenario. The person doing the lasing doesn't
necessarily even have to be a pilot or in an aircraft. Many ground units
are equipped with laser designators these days. The Tornado for example
does not carry it's own laser, since the mission it was intended to perform
was low-level attack and JP-233 delivery. All of their precision bombing
missions had to use "buddy lasing".
- -dean
------------------------------
From: George Allegrezza 15-Jan-1993 1046
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 10:47:02 EST
Subject: Aerospace Sciences Meeting
Mary Shafer (shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com) writes:
>I've spent most of the week watching papers on hypersonics and
>my mind is a little addled. Or maybe it was the snow.
>Not exactly a skunk-works thing, but the Nevada ANG still flies
>_my_ favorite airplane, in a recce version. Phantoms Phorever!
>They sortied a two-man in a section takeoff as I went for my rental
>car--welcome to Reno. That just about made the four days of the
>AIAA Aerospace Sciences conference worth it, especially the six
>hours of committee meetings (I'm on the AFM TC now).
Did you get a chance to attend the two sessions on waveriders (chaired by
Anderson and Lewis, I believe)? If so, what did you think of the
presentations? Was there anything of interest to the (reasonably)
intelligent lay person who is interested in hypersonic aircraft? I'm
considering ordering a few of the papers from the AIAA, but it's always
hard to predict just how interesting something might be from the title in
the Bulletin.
On the other hand, at $3.50 a pop, I won't go bankrupt, and I might learn
something anyway. Some of the authors listed are *the* heavy hitters in
the hypersonics business. There might even be a pretty picture, or a
nested reference to same.
Thanks.
George
------------------------------
From: agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au (Zoz)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 2:20:32 CST
Subject: Re: Sled Driver (fwd)
Howdy fellow skunkers - I received this message in email from someone
I was corresponding with about Sled Driver, and I thought people
here might find it at least interesting, and perhaps be able to offer
some explanation (Mary?). Personally, I have never heard of SRs being
painted anything except black (although there are several M-12 plastic
model kits that I have seen which depict both the M-12 and the D-21
as silver-coloured.
Forwarded message:
|> From @VM.USC.EDU:RSPMRO@LLUVM.BITNET Fri Jan 15 19:18:40 1993
|> A friend and I fly over Edwards AFB near where I live (San Bernardino CA, USA)
|> One day, I looked out over their complex, and I saw the familiar shape of the
|> SR ! We did a sharp bank, and circled the area for a few minutes gawking at
|> them. Then I realized what looked odd; they were painted in VERY odd schemes.
|> All had "bengle tiger" stripes, there were about 8-10, most were yellow with
|> black stripes, some were red, blue and green with black stripes!
|> Ever heard of such a thing? It was quite a sight to say the least! I wish I
|> had my camera.
|>
|> Thought you would find this story odd, being a Lockheed fan.
|>
|> ttyl...Thanks for the info......Mark
So, what do you folks think? Thanks,
- --
______ _____________ ______________________ ______
/\####/\ / / / / /\####/\
/ \##/ \ /_______ / / _ ______ / / \##/ \
/____\/____\ / / / / \ \ / / /____\/____\
\####/\####/ / /____\ \_/ / / /_______ \####/\####/
\##/ \##/ / / / / \##/ \##/
\/____\/ /_____________________/ /____________/ \/____\/
agbrooks@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au
------------------------------
From: tom@gordian.com (Tom Ambrose)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 10:13:10 PST
Subject: Re: Skunk Works is hiring??? Say, do they need physical chemists?
Since, I was the one that has the LA Times ad and I haven't been able to scan it,
I'll type it.
(In large font) (smaller, italics)
THE SKUNK WORKS...In Business,
In Palmdale!
- -------------------------------
(in regular type)
The legendary "Skunk Works", also known as Lockheed Advanced Developement Company
(LADC, has been the leading innovator in aviation technology for the past 50
years.
Now LADC is located in major new facilities in Palmdale. It marks the beginning
of an exciting new era for this exceptionally prosperous company.
At LADC, our half-century legacy extends from the development of America's first
operational jet fighter, the P-80 Shooting Star, through the U-2 and SR-71
reconnaissance aircrafts, up to the F-117A stealth fighter.
Today, as always, we're looking far into the future with such leading edge
projects as the Navy's new stealth fighter, the AX, and much more.
To help us in our critical work, we need experienced individuals who want to be a
vital part of a winning team. Now and in the future we have excellent
opportunities in the following areas:
-Aeronautical Engineering
-Antenna/Radome Design
-Automatic Test Systems
-Avionics
-Design Engineering
-EO/IR Sensors
-Financial
-IR Observables & Signature Reduction Analysis
-LO/RCS Technology
-Propulsion
-Radar Systems
-RF/Microwave
-Real-Time
-Special Materials Developement
-Structural Analysis
(I left a few out and didn't include all details)
For immediate consideration, please send your resume to:
Lockheed Advanced Development Company
Professional Staffing
Dept. 0052
1011 Lockheed Way
Palmdale, CA 93599-3714
Lockheed is an equal opportunity employer m/f/h. Applicants selected will
subject to a security investigation and must meet eligibility requirements for
access to classified information.
(On the side of the ad is the Skunk with "1943-1993 Lockheed's Skunk Works 50th
Anniversary")
I'll still try to get the scanner to work.
- -tom
------------------------------
From: gt6745b@prism.gatech.edu
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 15:58:56 EST
Subject: Jobs?!
Did I see someone write about jobs at skunk-works? Do they need Aerospace
engineers at all? Any info would be very helpful.
On another subject, whether or not an Aurora aircraft exists, you know that
the government and the AF just loves that the public insists there is one.
Imagine the exasperation of other countries in believing that they can't do
anything without being seen, and can't even prove that they have been watched
over.
Michael David Knight gt6745b@prism.gatech.edu * COMBAT AIRCRAFT: A mix of *
Georgia Institute of Technology * sharp teeth, cold steel, *
Atlanta, Georgia 30332 * cosmic warlords, and evil *
Aerospace Engineering (404)676-0520 * spirits. *
------------------------------
From: Mary Shafer
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 17:05:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Aerospace Sciences Meeting
On Fri, 15 Jan 1993, George Allegrezza 15-Jan-1993 1046 wrote:
> Mary Shafer (shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com) writes:
>
> >I've spent most of the week watching papers on hypersonics ...
[My reference to F-4s and the AIAA Aerospace Sciences conference greatly
edited]
> Did you get a chance to attend the two sessions on waveriders (chaired by
> Anderson and Lewis, I believe)? If so, what did you think of the
> presentations? Was there anything of interest to the (reasonably)
> intelligent lay person who is interested in hypersonic aircraft? I'm
> considering ordering a few of the papers from the AIAA, but it's always
> hard to predict just how interesting something might be from the title in
> the Bulletin.
I went to the second session (Lewis's). After the last paper Mr. Waverider
himself spoke briefly and it was very interesting.
I'd have to say that the papers in the session I saw might not be real
accessible to the lay person, but I may be underestimating that person.
I heartily recommend John Anderson's books, every one of them.
> On the other hand, at $3.50 a pop, I won't go bankrupt, and I might learn
> something anyway. Some of the authors listed are *the* heavy hitters in
> the hypersonics business. There might even be a pretty picture, or a
> nested reference to same.
Well, here's one recommendation. Look up the Tuesday morning hypersonics
session (look under Dana, W. in the index) and order the paper with the number
for K. Petersen about the SR-71. The paper wasn't about the SR-71 or by
Kevin, it was by Iliff and Shafer and titled "Comparison of Hypersonic
Flight and Prediction Results". I thought it was a pretty good paper, but
then, I'm Shafer and I'm married to Iliff. X-15, Reentry F, SWERVE, and
Space Shuttle. I'd order Dana's paper, too, if you want a pilot's account
of flying the X-15.
Regards,
Mary
Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com
------------------------------
From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 14:44:33 PST
Subject: Jobs?!
Personally, I find the AF/Gov denying that something that's been seen
by unrelated people at unrelated places at different times, and explaining
them away with easily questionable answers, tells me that they either think
that the public, Congress, or both, are stoopid.
If there is nothing being developed, nothing flying, and therefore
nothing to hide, then why is Tonapah and Groom Lake not open to the
public? Sure, we know that Groom has tested the B-2 and the Mig-21.
But those aren't unknown to us.
I would also wonder out loud why are these facilities situated in the
middle of a DOE nuke dump? If the DOD is denying any of these ac exist,
is it possible that the DOE has overall control of the projects there?
That would have the classification and security issues falling under the
different legal guidelines... hmmm. Since releasing nuclear classified
info is clearly illegal under any circumstance, and regular classified
info could be released provided there was no intent to do so on behalf
of a foreign power or there were no non-disclosure contracts on the
part of the person releasing, if they really want to keep a secret,
they'd do it under the jurisdiction of the DOE.
Sorry for the loooong winded sentence structure.
Rick
"You can't hide forever..."
------------------------------
From: mhuang@nike.calpoly.edu ( Michael S. Huang (Hunter) )
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 12:25:08 PST
Subject: Re: Aerospace Daily Aurora article part 2
In a previous message, Larry Smith wrote:
|
| The AF also said that some "sightings" of the mystery plane "will probably
| remain unchallenged simply because there is not enough information available
| to even hazard a guess." In this category the service places reports of a
| wedge-shaped plane over the North Sea in October 1989 and "puffs" of
| smoke resembling "doughnuts on a rope.""
[ ... ]
| Pressed repeatedly to explain this secret aircraft, since it would, at
| first glance, suggest an "Aurora," a Pentagon official would only advise
| the questioner to "think lower-tech."
Does this suggest that the AF has developed some sort of
external-combusting ramjet? Or perhaps this is merely a wild goose
chase?
Assuming that this is a truthful statement, what possibilities exist
that would be "lower-tech?" Certainly not scramjets...
This statement in conjunction with the statement that the aircraft in
question had a relatively small budget would suggest either very good
accounting to appropriate funding under "white" programs and then
redirect them to "black" programs, leaving less debate over a smaller
"black" budget, or that Lockheed has developed a very high-performance
aircraft under *very* tight budgetary constraints.
What would lower the cost of such an aircraft? Making it unmanned?
What sort of proven technology would provide this sort of performance?
Ideas? Speculation?
mike
- --
============================== /--- /----+ ==================================
Michael S. Huang / \__ | home: (805) 546-8646
System Administrator \ \ | hunter@rat.csc.CalPoly.EDU
Computer Systems Laboratory == \_______/ |____ ==== Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
------------------------------
From: larry@ichips.intel.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 16:04:18 -0800
Subject: Re: Aerospace Daily Aurora article part 2
Hello Mike,
In a previous message, Larry Smith wrote:
|
| The AF also said that some "sightings" of the mystery plane "will probably
| remain unchallenged simply because there is not enough information available
| to even hazard a guess." In this category the service places reports of a
| wedge-shaped plane over the North Sea in October 1989 and "puffs" of
| smoke resembling "doughnuts on a rope.""
[ ... ]
| Pressed repeatedly to explain this secret aircraft, since it would, at
| first glance, suggest an "Aurora," a Pentagon official would only advise
| the questioner to "think lower-tech."
>
>Does this suggest that the AF has developed some sort of
>external-combusting ramjet? Or perhaps this is merely a wild goose
>chase?
To me the in the first paragraph, the USAF is invoking a response identical
to many of their responses to UFO unknowns back in the Project Blue Book days,
namely "non-sufficient information". In other words, we're telling you
it's not ours, and it doesn't belong to any other agency, and we would know,
and we consider the information provided insufficient, and even uninteresting,
and therefore we won't help you find out what it is, even though some could
argue that's our job.
The reason for this answer of course is the real question. It may
hide real knowledge or real ignorance.
The advantage to us though versus the UFO, is that we know where this bird
lives!
Actually, if this story had just had the last Donald Rice denial, followed with
the bit from the very end about the audit report "Report No. 92-110 - Top
Secret," I think it really would have been much better. But all the crap
in there that most aircraft enthusiasts know is blantantly WRONG, gives
you the impression of a BLIND debunking order.
If the story had been as I said, it would have made me wonder because
we might have been looking at, for example, a PDE powered U-2 follow on,
(manned/unmanned) for example. In fact, it still does make me wonder.
>Assuming that this is a truthful statement, what possibilities exist
>that would be "lower-tech?" Certainly not scramjets...
No I don't think they were that ignorant of hypersonics.
In the hypersonic field I think you could categorize SOME Mach 4-5 vehicles
as being much lower-tech than an orbital velocity airbreather. Maybe some
of the experts on the list may correct me on that. But I don't think
the writers of that article, or the USAF guys they were talking to,
were that knowledgeable. They certainly didn't sound like they were.
>This statement in conjunction with the statement that the aircraft in
>question had a relatively small budget would suggest either very good
>accounting to appropriate funding under "white" programs and then
>redirect them to "black" programs, leaving less debate over a smaller
>"black" budget,
Interesting.
> or that Lockheed has developed a very high-performance
>aircraft under *very* tight budgetary constraints.
Very high performance in design and manufacturing and test is one of the
pay-offs in the skunk-works approach. I know that is not really an answer
to your question, but it kind of is.
>What would lower the cost of such an aircraft? Making it unmanned?
That's one, maybe. It depends on what job his/her replacement has to do I
would think. I think if you don't have to invent something it makes
things cheaper. If you already have expertise and can buy stuff off the
shelf it's cheaper.
>What sort of proven technology would provide this sort of performance?
Maybe you now evolve something out of SR-71 technology, or maybe in the
35 years since the SR was designed, plus certain results from key
programs like NASP, NASA programs (X-15 + lifting bodies say) and internal
Lockheed development programs, you have already evolved SR or developed
totally new technology that you are now comfortable with.
There have been LOTS of studies about airplanes like this since the
late 50's. I think that SUNTAN would even help here.
Larry
------------------------------
From: tom@gordian.com (Tom Ambrose)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 17:26:28 PST
Subject: B-2 Stealth Fix
This from today's LA Times Business Section. I'll summarize it for our
discussion.
Air Force Has 'Fix' for B-2 Stealth Shortcoming
by Ralph Vartabedian.
The AF stated that it has 'a couple of hundred million' dollar fix for a defect
that left the Northrop B-2 Stealth bomber vulnerable to radar detection.
AF Sec Donald Rice said the fix "closes the book on major items that had to be
worked", although the aircraft still faces considerable testing.
Fixing the radar problem would resolve a major doubt about a program that has
been crucial to Northrop since it won the B-2 contract in 1981. Rice said the
$200 million cost of fixing the defects will be paid under the firms development
contract, forcing Northrop to pick up only a fraction of the cost.
Rice said the AF will be able to fix the problem by making relatively minor and
imperceptible changes to the plastic edges and surfaces of the bomber.
The original failure occurred at a single radar frequency, but Rice said the
improvements to the bomber should reduce its radar visibility across all
frequencies.
The B-2 will be no less stealthy than originally conceived, Rice said, making it
far more difficult to detect than the Lockheed F-117 stealth fighter.
B-2 critics have long questioned whether the bomber will be vulnerable to new
technology, but after the F-117 performed so well in the Persian Gulf, those
concerns died down.
In addition, Rice announced that the AF and Northrop had developed a new stealth
diagnostic system, which can precisely identify which parts of an airplane
contribute to its radar visibility.
I thought that a few comments were interesting. The one about the B-2 being more
difficult to detect than the F-117 seems like a marketing jab at Lockheed more
than anything else. I really find the statement hard to believe (although I'm
no RCS expert). Just the size difference in the aircraft makes the statement a
little hard to swallow.
The statement about the F-117 performance in the Gulf reminds me of the
discussion we had earlier about the comments from the E-2C pilot.
- -tom
------------------------------
End of Skunk Works Digest V2 #54
********************************
To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command:
subscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works":
subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command:
unsubscribe skunk-works-digest
in the body.
Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent
to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you
don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu".
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest"
in the commands above with "skunk-works".
Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in
/pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM"
is the issue number).